The Break-Up of Australia: Aboriginal Recognition, Treaties and Racial Separatism by Ian Wilson LL.B

Australia Day, January 26, is basically the Aussie equivalent of America’s Fourth of July. It is called “Invasion Day” by the usual university types, leftoids and radical Left Aboriginalists. In Sydney this year, a man tried to burn the Australian flag, and violence erupted with protestors duplicating Black Lives matter-style battles with police. See the action shots here: http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/violence-at-invasion-day-protest-in-sydney/news-story/5501ab73659c57e2a2936cf24eaac591

The protestors see Australia as an illegitimate nation, founded on invasion (which makes most nations illegitimate), a “day of killing” and of “genocide” which is “still going on today.” It seems that the majority of the protestors were whites, as we have come to expect from the 1960s on, the offspring of those who committed genocide.
Should they therefore engage in acts of “self-punishment” as comfortable US academics have advised their students, while these academics sit back and feel morally superior? Should they emigrate from Australia, and to where? Should all of the infrastructure and buildings in Australia be levelled and an attempt made to return the land to what it might have been prior to European settlement? Or should the white liberals just wait for Australia to fall into communist China, so that a really good society is created, as they see it? It is hard to work out their demands beyond the baby elites’ desire for violence and assaulting police. And in a few years’ time, these folk will rule us, no doubt growing up and becoming globalists. Better to follow Trump and dish out 10-year gaol terms, to put the evil day off.

The Cultural War Heats Up: Treaties
The Aboriginal recognition movement, was first said to be only a symbolic recognition of the existence of Aborigines, and it was advertised as only a decent thing to do, by enshrining this in the Constitution. Then, there was the movement, of changing sections of the Constitution which spoke of race, because, well, unless race is being used for affirmative action, races don’t exist, and it is racist to think so, if you are white, and whites only exist for the purpose of needing to be shamed for past and continuing acts of racism. I argued in many articles, in detail, that this narrative was incoherent, and almost certainly we would soon see the real agenda behind Aboriginal recognition emerge.
It did not take long for talk of treaties, even separate nations, to emerge, although this was never completely invisible from the start. The mere change of the Constitution was not enough, for there must be a treaty, sovereignty land and financial agreements, a racial non-discrimination clause in the constitution, and reserved parliamentary seats for Aboriginals (The Australian, December 12, 2017, p. 1) State governments, such as South Australia began million dollar negotiations, called incorrectly “treaties” with indigenous communities. (The Australian, December 14, 2016, p. 1) Legal experts, have regarded this as just word play as state governments lack a treaty power: The Australian, December 16, 2017, p. 8.

The main problem here, as pointed out by Morgan Begg and Simon Breheny (IPA Review, December, 2016), is that the very idea of a treaty requires two (or more) sovereign states. The push for a treaty thus presupposes that Aborigines constitute a sovereign state. And that is simply incredible even in our politically correct cucked culture. The historical record shows that Aborigines were tribal people, living in distinct tribes with distinct languages and territories. There was often violence between tribes: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/the-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/. This is not a criticism of Aboriginal society because European and Asian pre-history was probably even more violent and tribal. But, the point remains, that Aboriginal society was no more unified that was the European peoples in 10,000 BC. States did not exist.
Thus, Aboriginal society – and there is nothing wrong with this – was not organised into anything like a modern state, or even a pre-modern kingdom. The supposition of a sovereign Aboriginal state presupposes even today, that there is some official Aboriginal government that represents the entire people, but what we have today are various community representatives, who, as far as I can see, have never been elected by some fair and democratic national election. So, where is this sovereign state? Surely, it only exists as a figment of the radical feel-good imagination.

The pursuit of a separate Aboriginal state would require the break-up of Australia, as Keith Windschuttle argues in The Break-Up of Australia: The Real Agenda Behind Aboriginal Recognition, (Quadrant books, Sydney, 2016). This is a long book which goes into great detail about the history behind these debates, but his central thesis is that the real agenda of Aboriginal constitutional recognition is to create a separate Aboriginal state, with the recognition vote being a launching pad. This is to vastly extend gains made since the Mabo case with native title. The inside cover of Windschuttle’s book has a map, with native title and claimant applications as of March 2016. At that time, 32 percent of the entire Australian land continent was subject to a native title determination and 31.7 percent, to an existing claim application.
Windschuttle argues that radical Aboriginalists do not merely want land, but see Australia as “our country,” as the title of one book put it, presumably meaning that they own and have sole jurisdiction over what we call “Australia.” The British settlement is a mere epiphenomenon, which they hope will pass into history, as they return to traditional life, law and values.
The basic argument of the Aboriginalists is that Australian courts have recognised that Aboriginal society had its own laws.  The existence of such laws implies that Aboriginal sovereignty exists, which, because they were never conquered, remains unextinguished.

On this I see numerous problems, even at this level. The mere existence of tribes with laws does not imply that sovereign states exist. Further, for some odd reason, it has not been argued by conservatives that the Aboriginal people were conquered. Under international law of the time, if they were they would certainly have had their sovereignty extinguished. Instead, the past Establishment went the way of terra nullius, “nobody’s land,” land which is not subject to the rule of a state. While that is arguably true, it was easy for the politically correct court in Mabo to make the case against that. But, the entire “Invasion Day” rhetoric can be used as a tu quoque, for this would support the argument from conquest, and thus extinguish any state right, even if it existed in the first place.
There is something fundamentally wrong with British law if it did not extinguish native title. Did Norman law extinguish Anglo-Saxon law? Surely it did by conquest, which need not involve a battle of extermination, but at least would involve the destruction of the existing society and its laws and its replacement with the new. This happened in Australia with the British settlement.

A more detailed consideration of Windschuttle’s book will be given next week. For the moment, we note that the recognition agenda fits into the elite’s plans for dismantling traditional Australia. It is most unlikely that Aborigines will be permitted to abandon capitalism and return the country to pre-modernity. This is so at variance with the forces of economic globalisation that it is surprising that members of the Left do not start to suspect that something is fishy and that there may be an agenda behind even the Aboriginal recognition agenda.
Be that as it may, we now have the battle lines clearly drawn. A “No” vote is needed to disrupt the globalist plan to break-up Australia. The Establishment are determined to get their “Yes” vote, and it is a big thing for both Turnbull and Shorten. It is religion for the Greens. Thus, the fight must be at the grassroots, and it needs to get serious, now. All groups, such as the anti-immigration and alternative economics groups need to join forces on this one, but the real victory will be by you, the ordinary reader convincing as many people as you can, to vote “No.”
We need to  start the battle now if we want to have a country left.